I think that in fact most of the really meaningful left wing thinking comes from the States these days. It's not mainstream, but analysis is typically far deeper and more observant than similar thinking in the UK.

A Romney campaign official has blasted Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, as an ‘eccentric, odd fellow’ whose public attack on the Republican candidate was ‘unbecoming’ and an indication of his bias towards President Barack Obama.

Why would I need a gun to defend myself in a nation that doesn't really have any guns?

What use is a "freedom" to use a specific device to defend yourself when maintaining the right to that device for the populace also guarantees a massively increased risk of actually requiring to defend oneself?

In the UK we defend ourselves by removing the opponent's weapon. I am demonstrably better defended than the average citizen of the United States of America. There is no controversy about this fact. The statistics speak for themselves, very loudly.

The reason for this is that despite my having no right to purchase firearms to defend myself against armed attackers, armed attackers do not have the right to arm themselves against me either, and, this right being absent from their lives, they run prohibitive risks in making the attempt do so. So, generally, they don't.

It doesn't seem to occur to some of you that method you are choosing to try and make yourself safe, is in fact making your lives more dangerous.